The TRUE Cost of "Cap and Trade"

Documenting the coming economic collapse, thanks to Obama and "global warming."

Full EPA Report June 30, 2009

The one the Obama EPA didn’t want you – or your Congressional representatives – to read before voting on the cap and trade bill last Friday.

Send it to your state Senators.  Maybe they’ll read it and realize that global warming is a bunch of malarkey.

The number for the Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or


New lighting standards

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Cap and Trade News,Costs of Cap and Trade — Amy Curtis @ 1:47 am

Is there nothing in your house that Obama doesn’t think is his business?

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama’s pitch.

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

The White House added the event to the president’s schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama “affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill.”

The measure’s fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: “I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate.” But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn’t speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year’s end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.


Cap and Trade Primer

Filed under: Cap and Trade News — Amy Curtis @ 1:46 am

A really handy, simple to read Cap and Trade Primer from the Institute for Energy Research. (PDF Document warning).


Dissent no longer patriotic

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Cap and Trade News — Amy Curtis @ 1:45 am

At least to Paul Krugman, who writes in the op-ed pages of The New York Times that anyone who disagrees with global warming and/or opposes cap and trade is guilty of a “form of treason.”

From Newsbusters, via the New York Times:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

Krugman ignores growing dissent.  Both in the U.S. and globally.  Because nothing will stand in the way of Obama and his media sychophants getting what they want:  massive government control and a third world economy.


A plea for help

Filed under: Uncategorized — Amy Curtis @ 1:35 am

I’m one person, with a job and a family, who has finite amounts of time and energy to spend trolling the Internet and/or watching television for news on cap and trade.

I really would appreciate it if you – any readers I may have – could help.

How, you ask?  Simple.

  1. Send me news articles.  I want as much of my blog cited with online sources as possible.  This also gives me time to look at and verify the vailidity of sources.
  2. Spread the word.  Tell family and friends about the blog.  Link me from your blog.
  3. Put up signs (obey all local ordinances, please).  I created simple signs that read:

Drive a car? (or “Own a home?” or “Buy food?” or “Heat your home?”)

Cap and Trade legislation

Punishes YOU

find out how at

We can help defeat this in the Senate and we can send a clear message to any politician – Democrat OR Republican – who votes for this travesty of a bill that, come 2010 and 2012, we will remember their names and we will vote against them.  They – like all the people who work for energy/manufacturing companies affected by cap and trade – will be out of a job.


The second lie: faulty “science” behind cap and trade

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Global Warming "Science" — Amy Curtis @ 1:33 am

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a “global warming” skeptic, and have been for a while.  I’m 26, and back when I was in elementary school in the late 1980s and through the 1990s (until I got to high school, really) I remember components of my education that including warnings about “global warming” and the coming disasters.

Now, I know how susceptible young minds are to suggestions made by people in their lives – especially teachers.  Teachers are respected and trusted as intelligent, all-knowing people (especially in elementary school) and their word is practically gospel.  I remember how my 4th grade teacher once told us that if there were ever a World War III, my hometown would be one of the first bombed because we have a lot of factories that could be converted into building tanks.  I know now that her assertion is total bunk, but when you’re 9 years old the mental image of being blown to bits in a war is terrifying.

So imagine how your school-aged kids feel when their teachers, often driven by the same political agenda behind Al Gore and this cap and trade bill, are told people are killing the planet.  That we’re all going to burn up.  That seas are going to rise and drown people on the coasts.  It sticks with them.  It forms them.  It is a brand of indoctrination that continues through college.  Only if you’re lucky, and do your job as a parent correctly, will your kids not turn into the next wave of eco-facists.

Anyway, aside from talking about the bill, its coming economic impact, and how to stop this insanity, one of the other things this blog focuses on is the “science” behind “global warming” and how – despite President Obama’s vow to “shield politics from science” – it is the most politicized agenda operating under the guise of “science” in contemporary times (I could talk about health care, but that’s for another blog).

The Lies in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Probably the most notorious piece of propaganda in the global warming debate is Al Gore’s “documentary” titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”  In October, 2007, Newsbusters reported that a British court ruled there are 11 inaccuracies (or lies, whichever you prefer) in the film.

Not only that, but the court ruled that any teacher who showed the film in his class had to disclose the following:

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

What are those 11 inaccuracies (emphasis Newsbusters):

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Yet the film won several awards, and Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN Climate Panel.  So much for “truth.”

Intentional Language Barriers

First, and perhaps most overlooked, is the language used when discussing global warming.  Language is a great tool but, when used for nefarious purposes, it can be a great weapon.  Changing the meaning of words – either conotatively or denotatively – regardless of the true meaning or connotation of the word, can give someone tremendous power over another.

Just one case I can think of is the use of the word “niggardly.”  Now, it sounds an awful lot like a terrible racial slur that would (rightly so) render the speaker criticized or ostracized.  But it doesn’t even remotely mean the same thing.  “Niggardly” is an adjective meaning stingy or miserlyDavid Howard used the word in reference to a budget and someone took offense.  Howard resigned from the uproar, but was later reinstated.  Incidents with the same word also happened at the University of Wisconsin, a school in Wilmington, NC, and elsewhere.  It’s a sad testament to the political correctness in America that undermines rational thought, open debate, and our lack of educational standards when people are offended at a word that doesn’t mean the same thing as they think it means.

My point is not to obfuscate the cap and trade debate with a tangent.  But what the “niggardly” incident proves is that changing even the connotative meaning of words (not to mention the denotative meaning of them) has consequences.  It not only confuses people, but it paralyzes them in fear that they, too, may have their own “niggardly” moment and get in trouble for it.

How does this apply to the global warming/cap and trade debate?

Well, how many of you were actively aware that the term “global warming” has, in recent months, been replaced with the more ambiguous term “global climate change”?  I’m guessing most of you noticed the switch, but do you know what it means?

It’s simple, really.  The term global warming has been used since about the 1980s to describe an “increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.”  Now, if the temperatures increased as global warming scientists, alarmists, and politicians claimed, that’d be an accurate description.

Except, it isn’t.

Let’s go back in time a bit.  During the 1970s, global cooling was the catastrophe du jour, and even Newsweek reported on “The Cooling World” and the belief was earth was on the brink of another ice age.   31 years later, Newsweek issued a contraction on that story (which it wholeheartedly believed at the time), in favor of the new catastrophe du jour, global warming.

When the earth didn’t enter a second ice age terminology shifted from “global cooling” to “global warming”.  But the basic assumption was the same: man was the cause and evil man needed to do something or the earth would be destroyed.

And, today, after at least a good decade and a half of global warming hysterics, the term “global warming” is now replaced by “global climate change.”  Why?

Because those dramatic temperature increases that were going to obliterate the polar ice caps, flood the coasts, and burn us all to a crips didn’t happen.  In fact, weather trends have been cooling or increasing far less dramatically that scientists predicted. has a plethora of information about climate change, including tracking trends in news cycles that fluctuated between global warming and global cooling since 1895.

Second, the shift in language also includes the use of the words “consensus” and “settled science.”  This is a backhanded way of introducing the liberal argument of “Shut up, they explained” into the debate.  Saying global warming/climate change is a “consensus” closes the door for debate, and leaves open a window through which global warming alarmists can hurl epithets at their opponents.  Same thing with “settled science.”

Except that it isn’t.

Skepticism on the rise

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere”:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Read the whole thing.

And this comes on the heels of news that the Obama administration’s EPA sat on a report questioning the science behind global warming prior to the vote on cap and trade in the House.  From Michelle Malkin:

The Obama administration doesn’t want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don’t want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion-dollar, thousand-page “cap and trade” bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

Read the whole thing.

Malkin’s column supports the claim in the Wall Street Journal article that this news has been greatly suppressed in the U.S., with the specific intention of passing cap and trade.

So let’s recap what we’ve learned.

  1. When global warming alarmists (aided by the media) realized people weren’t buying the hysteria, and that global temperatures were declining, the term “global warming” was replaced with “global climate change.”
  2. Al Gore’s award-winning movie was found to be rife with errors and politically biased by a court in the UK (hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatism).
  3. The number of global warming skeptics is growing.
  4. The EPA suppressed a vital report before the House voted on cap and trade in order to quell dissent and skepticism and to help the Obama administration pass a massive, regressive, jobs and economy killing bill that will affect every single American.

Which begs the question: is this really science?

Or is it a political game masquerading as “science” to pass a very specific agenda.  Any logical person will look at the evidence and know it’s the latter.


The third lie: Cap and trade & energy indpendence

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Costs of Cap and Trade,Economic Impact — Amy Curtis @ 1:31 am

One of the lynchpins in Obama’s “cap and trade” legislation was reducing our independence on foreign oil imports.

Guess what?  The cap and trade bill that the House passed June 26 does exactly the opposite.

Why?  According to Bloomberg:

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston.

Read the whole thing.

Does that make sense to you?


Then it means you aren’t a U.S. politician.